DOCSLIB.ORG

And in Re Requested Extradition of Smyth Daniel T

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
And in Re Requested Extradition of Smyth Daniel T Cornell International Law Journal Volume 30 Article 8 Issue 2 1997 The omprC omise between Outrage and Compassion: Article 3(a) and In re Requested Extradition of Smyth Daniel T. Kiely Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kiely, Daniel T. Jr. (1997) "The omprC omise between Outrage and Compassion: Article 3(a) and In re Requested Extradition of Smyth," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 30: Iss. 2, Article 8. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol30/iss2/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Compromise Between Outrage and Compassion: Article 3(a) and In re Requested Extradition of Smyth Daniel T. Kiely, Jr.* Introduction The 1986 ratification of a supplementary extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom' marked a significant departure from established extradition law in the United States. The Supplementary Treaty was promulgated in response to four federal court decisions in the early 1980s refusing to extradite members of the Provisional Irish Republi- can Army (P.I.R.A.) to the United Kingdom. 2 In each case, the P.I.R.A. fugi- tives were deemed to be non-extraditable after the court concluded that the "4political offense" exception barred their extradition.3 This exception is codified in all bilateral extradition treaties to which the United States is a party and grants U.S. courts the power to refuse a foreign nation's request for extradition if the court finds that the offense committed by the potential extraditee was political in nature.4 The 1985 Supplementary Treaty between the United States and Great Britain significantly narrowed the political offense exception by explicitly excluding most violent crimes from * J.D., Cornell Law School, 1997; B.A., College of the Holy Cross, 1994. This Note is dedicated to my parents, Daniel and Ellen Kiely, and to the memory of my uncle, Tim Kiely. 1. Supplementary Treaty Concerning the Extradition Treaty Between the Govern- ment of the Unites States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, June 25, 1985 [hereinafter Supplementary Treaty]. The text of this treaty can be found at S. ExEc. REP. No. 17, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 15-17 (1986). 2. See In re Mackin, 668 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1981); In re Doherty, 599 F. Supp. 270, 277 (S.D. N.Y. 1984), affid, 943 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1991), rev'd, 502 U.S. 314 (1992); In re McMullen, Mag. No. 3-78-1099 MG, slip op. (N.D. Cal. May 11, 1979); Quinn v. Robinson, No. C-82-6688 RPA, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 1983), rev'd, 783 F.2d 776, 793 (9th Cir. 1986). 3. Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Oct. 21, 1976, art. V(1)(c)(i), U.S.-U.K, 28 U.S.T. 227 [hereinafter Extradition Treaty]. This provision of the treaty states that extradition "shall not be granted" in cases where the offense "is regarded by the requested party as one of a political character." 4. See John Patrick Groarke, Comment, Revolutionaries Beware: The Erosion of the Political Offense Exception Under the 1986 United States-United Kingdom Supplementary Extradition Treaty, 136 U. PA. L. Rev. 1515, 1519 (1988). 30 Comtnt. Ir't. J. 587 (1997) Cornell International Law Journal Vol. 30 the definition of "political crime. ' 5 Although the Supplementary Treaty effectively denies P.I.R.A. fugitives a defense predicated upon the political offense exception, it does provide for a new, more narrow, defense to extradition. This new defense is codi- fied in article 3(a) of the Supplementary Treaty.6 Article 3(a) provides potential extraditees with a defense to extradition based upon racial, reli- gious, political, or ethnic discrimination. Under article 3(a), a U.S. court may deny extradition in two situations: (1) if the request for extradition is motivated by a subjective desire to punish the person sought on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, or political opinions; or (2) in situa- tions where the person sought would in fact be prejudiced at his or her trial, or prejudiced after his or her trial on account of the forbidden 7 factors. Until 1994, no P.I.R.A. fugitive had asserted an article 3(a) defense to extradition. In In re Requested Extradition of Smyth, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that James Smyth, a suspected P.I.R.A. fugitive who had escaped from prison in Northern Ireland after serving five years of a twenty-year sentence for attempted murder, asserted a meritorious article 3(a) defense to extradition. 8 The court held that Smyth had established this claim by showing that he would be punished both because of his religion and because of his political opinions upon his 5. Article 1 of the Treaty states: For the purposes of the Extradition Treaty, none of the following shall be regarded as an offense of a political character: (a) an offense for which both Contracting Parties have the obligation pursuant to a multilateral international agreement to extradite the person sought or to submit his case to their competent authorities for decision as to prosecution; (b) murder, voluntary manslaughter, and assault causing grievous bodily harm; (c) kidnapping, abduction, or serious unlawful detention, including taking a hostage; (d) an offense involving the use of a bomb, grenade, rocket, firearm, letter or parcel bomb, or any incendiary device if this use endangers any person; (e)an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offenses or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offense. Supplementary Treaty, supra note 1, at 15. 6. Article 3(a) provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Supplementary Treaty, extradition shall not occur if the person sought establishes to the satisfaction of the compe- tent judicial authority by a preponderance of the evidence that the request for extradition has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him on account of his race, religion, nationality, or political opinions, or that he would, if surren- dered, be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions. Supplementary Treaty, supra note 1, at 16. 7. See In re Requested Extradition of Smyth, 863 F. Supp. 1137, 1150 (N.D. Cal. 1994), rev'd 61 F.3d 711 (9th Cir. 1995), reh'g denied, 72 F.3d 1433 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 2258 (1996). The Smyth court noted that Article 3(a) granted two distinct powers: (1) the court may inquire into whether the requesting nation has "trumped up" charges against the fugitive; and (2) the court may inquire into whether the fugitive would be unfairly treated at his trial or punished, detained, or restricted in his liberty because of his race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. Id. 8. Id. at 1151. 1997 Compromise Between Outrage and Compassion return to prison in Northern Ireland and upon his subsequent release into the general populationY Judge Barbara Caulfield arrived at this conclusion by relying upon presumptions awarded to James Smyth that were not rebutted by Great Britain and by using an analogous immigration provi- sion called "withholding of deportation" to interpret article 3(a). 10 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the Northern District's findings and ordered the Northern District to certify the extradi- tion request.11 In addition to holding that the presumptions awarded to also rejected Judge James Smyth were inappropriate, the Ninth Circuit 2 Caulfield's use of the withholding of deportation statute and regulations.' The Supreme Court implicitly upheld the decision of the Ninth Circuit by 13 refusing to hear Smyth's appeal. This Note explores the Smyth case in an effort to determine the proper scope of article 3(a) of the Supplementary Treaty. This Note does not seek to determine the relative merits of Mr. Smyth's article 3(a) claim. Rather, it critiques the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of that provision. Part I discusses the historical roots of the Anglo-Irish relationship and the causes of the current conflict. Part I also discusses the judicial system that has been established in Northern Ireland in response to the political unrest there. Part II examines the 1986 Supplementary Treaty and its pred- ecessor, the 1977 Treaty. Part III looks at the background of James Smyth and the circumstances surrounding his trial and appeals in U.S. federal courts. Finally, part IV analyzes the holdings of the federal courts that heard Smyth and offers suggestions regarding the future interpretation and application of article 3(a). I. Background A. History of the Conflict and the Beginning of British Rule Irish historian Robert Kee once noted that when trouble began to escalate in Northern Ireland in the 1960s it took many people by surprise. Many people throughout the world thought that these problems signalled the beginning of unrest. However, these problems were not a beginning, but 4 rather were "the latest events in an age old story which began long ago."' To understand the violence that permeates Northern Ireland today it is necessary to understand the roots of the Anglo-Irish conflict.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guide to Combat Crime Related to Falsified Medical Products
    COMBATING FALSIFIED MEDICAL PRODUCT-RELATED CR ME A GUIDE TO GOOD LEGISLATIVE PRACTICES UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME COMBATING FALSIFIED MEDICAL PRODUCT-RELATED CRIME: A GUIDE TO GOOD LEGISLATIVE PRACTICES UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2019 i Acknowledgements This Guide was prepared by the Organized Crime Branch, Division for Treaty Affairs, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, and was funded by France. This Guide benefited from the invaluable contributions of numerous experts in falsified medical products from all continents of the world, acting in their individual capacity. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime also wishes to thank the Council of Europe, the Economic Community of West African States, the European Union, the International Council of Nurses, the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, the World Customs Organization and the World Health Organization for providing their expertise. Core team Hugo Bonar, Antonio De Vivo, Marion Ehalt, Karen Kramer, Riikka Puttonen and Christian Tournié Legal editing Colin Craig © United Nations, May 2019. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or nonprofit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNODC would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
    [Show full text]
  • You Have a Right to Remain Silent Michael Avery
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 30 | Number 2 Article 5 2003 You Have a Right to Remain Silent Michael Avery Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Avery, You Have a Right to Remain Silent, 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 571 (2002). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol30/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. You Have a Right to Remain Silent Cover Page Footnote The Author ppra eciates the advice of Professor Susan Klein, University of Texas Law School with respect to Fifth Amendment issues and the assistance of his colleague Professor Marie Ashe. The assistance of the Deans of Suffolk Law School with summer writing stipends made this work possible. This article is available in Fordham Urban Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol30/iss2/5 YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT Michael Avery* INTRODUCTION Everyone who watches television knows that when someone is arrested, the police have to "Mirandize"1 the suspect by reading his rights to him and that one of those rights is the "right to remain silent." The general public also knows that the suspect has the right to see a lawyer.2 Of course, in crime dramas these rights are often violated, but no one questions that they exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Ireland) Bill Which Is Due to Be Debated on Second Reading in the House of Commons on Wednesday 13 December 2006
    RESEARCH PAPER 06/63 The Justice and 7 DECEMBER 2006 Security (Northern Ireland) Bill Bill 10 of 2006-07 This paper discusses the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill which is due to be debated on second reading in the House of Commons on Wednesday 13 December 2006. A key part of the normalisation programme in Northern Ireland, following the paramilitary ceasefires and subsequent improvements in the security situation, is the expiry by July 2007 of counter-terrorist legislation specific to Northern Ireland, currently set out in Part 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Part 7 includes provisions currently enabling non-jury “Diplock courts” to try “scheduled offences”. The Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill contains measures designed to re-introduce a presumption in favour of jury trial for offences triable on indictment, subject to a fall-back arrangement for a small number of exceptional cases for which the Director of Public Prosecutions will be able to issue a certificate stating that a trial is to take place without a jury. Amongst other things the Bill also seeks to reform the jury system in Northern Ireland, extend the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, provide additional statutory powers for the police and armed forces and create a permanent regulatory framework for the private security industry in Northern Ireland. Miriam Peck Pat Strickland Grahame Danby HOME AFFAIRS SECTION HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY Recent Library Research Papers include: 06/44 Judicial Review: A short guide to claims in the Administrative
    [Show full text]
  • European Convention on Extradition
    European Treaty Series - No. 24 European Convention on Extradition Paris, 13.XII.1957 The governments signatory hereto, being members of the Council of Europe, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members; Considering that this purpose can be attained by the conclusion of agreements and by common action in legal matters; Considering that the acceptance of uniform rules with regard to extradition is likely to assist this work of unification, Have agreed as follows: Article 1 – Obligation to extradite The Contracting Parties undertake to surrender to each other, subject to the provisions and conditions laid down in this Convention, all persons against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence or who are wanted by the said authorities for the carrying out of a sentence or detention order. Article 2 – Extraditable offences 1 Extradition shall be granted in respect of offences punishable under the laws of the requesting Party and of the requested Party by deprivation of liberty or under a detention order for a maximum period of at least one year or by a more severe penalty. Where a conviction and prison sentence have occurred or a detention order has been made in the territory of the requesting Party, the punishment awarded must have been for a period of at least four months. 2 If the request for extradition includes several separate offences each of which is punishable under the laws of the requesting Party and the requested Party by deprivation of liberty or under a detention order, but of which some do not fulfil the condition with regard to the amount of punishment which may be awarded, the requested Party shall also have the right to grant extradition for the latter offences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland: a Fair Trial?
    Studie- en lnformatiecentrum Mensenrechten Netherlands Institute of Human Rights Institut Neerlandais des Droits de l'Homme The Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland: A Fair Trial? An analysis of the law, based on a study commissioned by Amnesty International by Douwe Korff SIM Special No. 3 Studie- en • e ourts 10 Mensenrechten orthem Ire a •• Netherlands Institute of Hu~an Rights lnstitut Neerlandais des Drotts de air Trial? l'Homme lnstituto Holandes de Derechos Human<lS Stichting Studie- en An analysis of the law. hased on a study commissioned lnfot matiecentrum Mensenrechten hy Amnesty International Nieuwegracht 94, 3512 LX UTRECI-IT, hy Douwe Korff The Netherlands, tel. 030 - 33 15 14 telex: 70779 SIM NL Cable Adress: SIMCABLE Bank: RABO-Bank Utrecht No. 39.45.75.555 Chairman Foundation: Professor P. van Dijk Director Institute: Mr. J.G.H. Thoolen The following analysis of the non-jury (" Diplock") couns in Northern Ireland was prepared in 1982 by Dutch lawyer, Douwe Korff, as a commissioned study for Amnesty International. ~ -' The text reproduced here has been shortened slightly (for reasons of economy). '' Amnesty International submitted the full text of the study in 19M3 to an official re­ view, then in progress, of the legislation and procedures governing such courts, as background to a recommendation that the organization's concerns he taken into ac­ count. SIM is grateful to Amnesty International for making the text available for independ­ ent publication. All rights for further reproduction are vested in Amnesty Interna­ tional. Table of contents Preface 7 Background note 9 List of references 14 Introduction 17 ' PART I The Pre-Triallnquiries and Proceedings 19 Chapter l The Legal Basis for Arrest and Detention for Questioning 20 (i) Ordinary Powers of Arrest 20 (ii) Common Law Essentials for a Valid Arrest 21 ( iii) Detention for Questioning 21 .
    [Show full text]
  • CH 10 Confessions
    CONFESSIONS .............................................................................................. 1 §10-1 Fifth Amendment Rights .......................................................................... 1 §10-2 Suppression Motions and Hearings ..................................................... 12 §10-3 Miranda Warnings ................................................................................... 17 §10-3(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 17 §10-3(b) Non-Police Interrogation ............................................................. 26 §10-3(c) “In custody” .................................................................................... 28 §10-3(d) “Interrogation” ............................................................................... 49 §10-4 Waiver of Rights ....................................................................................... 53 §10-4(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 53 §10-4(b) Interrogation After the Right to Counsel Attaches ............... 62 §10-4(c) Interrogation After Request for Counsel ................................. 68 §10-4(d) Interrogation After Request to Remain Silent ....................... 82 §10-5 Voluntariness ............................................................................................ 89 §10-5(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 89 §10-5(b) Examples:
    [Show full text]
  • World Law Bulletin, February 2001
    WLB 2001.02, February 2001 Indian rights The LAW Intellectual property law Internet security regulation Islamic edicts LIBRARY of Judicial independence Lifelong learning Marriage law CONGRESS Nuclear power plant Press freedom Privacy Wrongful birth case Updates: WORLD • World Trade Organization LAW • European Union Developments BULLETIN FOREIGN LAW FOCUS: Germany: Constitutional Court Rules on the Recognition of Jehovah’s Administration of medicines Witnesses Auditors China/Vietnam joint statement Embryo research People’s Republic of China: Farmers’ associations Extradition Law Firearms trading Foreign investment Income tax 2 WLB, No. 2001.02 –Lifelong learning law –Tax law amended The WORLD LAW EUROPE BULLETIN: a monthly France–Embryo research awareness service prepared by the Staff –“Wrongful birth” case of the Law Library of Congress. The Netherlands–Action against illegal trading in Editors: Constance Axinn Johnson and firearms Wendy I. Zeldin. For more information --Cameras and Privacy or research tailored to your needs, call: Slovakia–Auditors the Directorate of Legal Research, Ukraine–Hearings on press freedom at 7-4351 or fax: 7-1820. The Bulletin and information on Law SOUTH PACIFC Library services for Congress can be Australia–Judicial Independence found online: http://lcweb.loc.gov/law/congress. LAW AND ORGANIZATIONS– INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL GLIN: The Global Legal Information China/Vietnam–Cooperation statement Network, a primary source of authentic legal information serving congressional research needs, is accessed through
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 13, No. 1: Full Issue
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 13 Number 1 Fall Article 13 May 2020 Vol. 13, no. 1: Full Issue Denver Journal International Law & Policy Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation 13 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y (1983). This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. DENVER JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 13 1983-1984 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy VOLUME 13 NUMBER 1 FALL 1983 MYRES S. MCDOUGAL DISTINGUISHED LECTURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: ILLEGALITY IN CONTEXT .................... Burns H. Weston 1 The University of Denver College of Law was honored to have Professor Burns H. Weston, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa, as its guest speaker for the eighth annual Myres S. McDougal Distinguished Lecture. Professor Weston chose to address the topic of assessing the legality of nu- clear weapons and warfare, and he notes it is the special obligation of law- yers, "together with our clerical friends, to point up the normative rights and wrongs of coercive nuclearism." In his remarks, Professor Weston ac- knowledges that while there are no explicit treaties or treaty provisions which render nuclear weapons illegal per se, there are six "core rules" appli- cable to nuclear weapons which may be derived from the conventional and customary laws of war.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland: a Fair Trial?
    Studie- en Informatiecentrum VIO Mensenrechten Netherlands Institute of Human Rights Institut Neerlandais des Droits dc l'Homme The Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland: A Fair Trial? An analysis of the law, based on a study commissioned by Amnesty International by Douwe Korff SIM Special No. 3 Studies en Info atiecentrum The iplock Courts in ensenrechten orthe Ireland: Netherlands Institute of Human Rights Institut NEerlandais des Droits de Fair Trial? l'Homme Instituto Holandés de Derechos Humanos Stichting Studie- en An analysis of the law, based on a study commissioned lnformatiecentrum Mensenrechten by Amnesty International Nieuwegracht 94, 3512 LX UTRECHT, by Douwe Korff The Netherlands, tel. 030 - 33 15 14 telex: 70779 SIM NL Cable Adress: S1MCABLE Bank: RABO-Bank Utrecht No. 39.45.75.555 Chairman Foundation: Professor P. van Dijk Director Institute: Mr. J.G.H. Thoolen The following analysis of the non-jury ("Diplock") courts in Northern Inland was prepared in 1982 by Dutch lawyer, Douwe Korff, as a commissioned study for Amnesty International. The text reproduced here has been shortened slightly (for reasons of economy). Amnesty International submitted the full text of the study in 1983 to an official re- view, then in progress, of the legislation and procedures governing such courts, as background to a recommendation that the organization's concerns he taken into ac- count. SIM is grateful to Amnesty International for making the text available for independ- ent publication. All rights for further reproduction are vested in Amnesty
    [Show full text]
  • Miranda, Berghuis, and the Ambiguous Right to Cut Off Police Questioning
    MIRANDA, BERGHUIS, AND THE AMBIGUOUS RIGHT TO CUT OFF POLICE QUESTIONING Laurent Sacharoff ABSTRACT Miranda v. Arizona requires police warn suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. It also requires that if a suspect invokes his right to remain silent or his right to counsel, the police must terminate the interrogation. But the warnings do not tell the suspect he has the right to end the questioning, or how he may end it. Worse, despite a failure to explain the right, the Court in 2010 in Berghuis v. Thompkins, required that suspects invoke the right “unambiguously.” This requirement—that suspects invoke unambiguously a right they do not know exists—has created tremendous uncertainty in lower courts. These courts have no concrete standard against which to measure whether an assertion of the right was unambiguous. This article surveys the recent case law to show how a test that was supposed to simplify whether suspects had invoked their right by imposing an objective, plain meaning test has simply shifted the debate and confusion to what counts as “unambiguous.” I. INTRODUCTION The Court in Miranda v. Arizona1 required police warn suspects they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel during any interrogation. But Miranda also created an important new right for suspects that scholars rarely discuss expressly: the right to cut off police questioning.2 Indeed, the Court in Miranda identified lengthy questioning as a chief culprit in creating a potentially coercive atmosphere, compounded by a suspect’s belief that the police will interrogate until he talks.
    [Show full text]
  • Treaty on Extradition
    TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 13060 ________________________________________________________________________ EXTRADITION Treaty Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and SOUTH AFRICA Signed at Washington September 16, 1999 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)— “. .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence . of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.” SOUTH AFRICA Extradition Treaty signed at Washington September 16, 1999; Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate May 18, 2000 (Treaty Doc. 106-24, 106th Congress, 2d Session); Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations September 27, 2000 (Senate Executive Report No. 106-26, 106th Congress, 2d Session); Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate October 18, 2000; Ratified by the President December 23, 2000; Ratified by South Africa March 28, 2001; Ratifications exchanged at Pretoria June 25, 2001; Entered into force June 25, 2001. EXTRADmON TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
    [Show full text]
  • UNIFORM CRIMINAL EXTRADITION ACT Act 144 of 1937 an ACT
    UNIFORM CRIMINAL EXTRADITION ACT Act 144 of 1937 AN ACT relative to and to make uniform the procedure on interstate extradition; to prescribe penalties for the violation of the provisions of this act; and to repeal all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act. History: 1937, Act 144, Eff. Oct. 29, 1937. The People of the State of Michigan enact: 780.1 Uniform criminal extradition act; definitions. Sec. 1. Definitions. Where appearing in this act, the term "governor" includes any person performing the functions of governor by authority of the law of this state. The term "executive authority" includes the governor, and any person performing the functions of governor in a state other than this state. The term "state," referring to a state other than this state, includes any other state or territory, organized or unorganized, of the United States of America. History: 1937, Act 144, Eff. Oct. 29, 1937;CL 1948, 780.1. Compiler's note: The catchlines following the act section numbers were incorporated as part of the act as enacted. 780.2 Fugitives from justice; duty of governor. Sec. 2. Fugitives from justice; duty of governor. Subject to the provisions of this act, the provisions of the constitution of the United States controlling, and any and all acts of congress enacted in pursuance thereof, it is the duty of the governor of this state to have arrested and delivered up to the executive authority of any other state of the United States any person charged in that state with treason, felony, or other crime, who has fled from justice and is found in this state.
    [Show full text]